Gautam wrote:
> I'm thinking of getting an MZ-S and wondered how
> solidly it's built. Would it be likely to last
> a few decades of weekend use? Also, how good is
> it at keeping dust out? I travel a fair bit to
> dusty places so both things are important.
It is very well built. It is the s
Juan wrote:
> I do prefer HCB's, although it is far from his best pictures. Adams',
> as most of his work, is just another postcard, a beautifully rendered,
> trite image.
It is purely in the eye of the beholder. I have no interest whatsoever in any
other type of photography other than nature
Herb wrote:
> Pentax hasn't demonstrated that it knows one of the simplest business rules,
> make sure you know who your loved ones are (core market) protect that
> market. Pentax ought to be making a camera that sells to Pentax enthusiasts
> who have been buying lots of those lenses that we al
Herb wrote:
>. DSLRs make
> more profit, but there is going to be about a year to two year's time before
> the entire market is saturated too, just like digital P&S, and then profit
> margins are going to disappear as well.
[snip]
> sensible business people are the ones that are saying what
Godfrey wrote:
> I suspect Contax will likely be back with another CZG licensee, or
> CZG subsidiary.
I wouldn't bet on it.
Pål
Herb wrote:
> when you run a business, you stay in business only by doing what
> consistently makes money and dropping what doesn't. if those 40% of all
> Japanese medium format photographers buy as many 645Ds as Pentax hopes, the
> camera will make money and be profitable at something resembl
Raimo wrote:
> The Philips sensor had the same difficulties in the Pentax camera as well -
Actually, it didn't..
Pål
Paul wrote:
> Nice stuff. Wish I could afford one. But it's obviously time for Pentax
> to cancel their 645 plans. Too little, too late.
Huh? Maybe Canon should drop the 20D now that they have the EOS-1Ds?
The new backs are interesting for showing where the future goes but they are
priced
Paul wrote:
> I agree. Very interesting and informative. However, I don't think
> Pentax has a large studio pro market any more.
I don't think Pentax ever catered to the studio shooters. Pentax MF cameras
have mostly been used by outdoor photographers.
Pål
These guys aren't happy either:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CxAo
:-)
Herb wrote:
> Pål says he doesn't have and isn't interested in any current Pentax DSLR.
> he's probably in line for the 645D.
I'm in line for any Pentax DSLR that I can afford and that appeal to me;
K-mount or MF. In the mean time I have perfectly working Pentax MF and K-mount
film system I
Herb wrote:
> lots of people who bought a *istD said it was good enough, for now. it's
> almost two years since then and what was good enough then isn't good enough
> now. it won't be good enough until none of my lenses can resolve what the
> camera's sensor is capable of capturing. i'm willin
Tom wrote:
> As said earlier, the 645D would be a niche product, at too high a price
> point for most, and for the majority of us on the list, at least, would
> require the additonal purchase of a bunch of lenses.
Sure, but the same could be said about the top Canon and Nikon models as well.
T
Tom wrote:
> The point I'm attempting to make, which I'm not trying to be obnoxious
> about, is that saying and doing are two different things. The fact is that
> they said something, not that they have produced something and brought it to
> market.
Sure one can be sceptical or cynical but a
Tom wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone would, unless they already had a 645
> investment or money was no object.
For the same reason as many switched from 35mm to medium format. From reading
the various MF forums it seems to me that most Pentax 645 owners comes from
Canon EOS; mostly the
Lewis wrote:
> Why did you like the others and not the Z-1p? Like those you mentioned, it
> did what it was suopposed to do, and considering flexibility, often did it
> better.
I didn't like the looks, the plasticky feel and the interface with too many
features buried in menues to scroll thr
Kostas wrote:
> I still cannot see it. He can talk for himself, but I think the 645D
> may be right up his street.
But I don't think I can afford it. I hope, however, that I can afford the MkII
or Mk III version :-)
Pål
Cotty:
> The *ist D is an entry level camera?
>
> Strange but true.
Yes. When the original *istD was released it was as cheap as they came. It is
an entry level DSLR even if it costed Nikon F5 money!
As this was Pentax first and only DSLR it had to try to please all. Therefore
it couldn't be
Tom wrote:
> The point is this... How can Pal argue and assure us that Pentax is capable
> of/will produce the high end DSLR products we want, when they haven't
> produced one that he's willing to purchase?
Huh? I've no interest in entry level cameras; digital or not. I haven't bought
the fil
Tom wrote:
> The idea that they will produce a high-end DSLR that satisfies those having
> that longing, does not seem to be based on precedent, according to his
> words.
Maybe I'm thick, but I just don't get it. Pentax have not released a high-end
DSLR. Thats a fact. Pentax do claim that the
Christian:
> Oh, the irony of it all.. Pal, the champion for all things Pentax,
> never has anything good to say about the actual products.
Huh? I've spend countless of post defending the MZ-S. The LX and 645's well. I
also like Spotmatics. K-series cameras. MX etc.
The only Pentax slr
Cristian wrote:
> > I already have an istD. I don't see a Ds or Dl in my future.
> > If they want me to buy another DSLR from them, they have to do better than
> > that.
>
> BINGO!
BINGO indeed. I don't even own a DSLR. They need to do much better than the
*istD's in order to tempt me...
Pål
Rob wrote:
> Whatever the market penetration of 645 film equipment I'm pretty sure that
> Pentax would secure a greater and more reliable cash return from this group
> alone if it concentrated on producing a top end 35mm digital body over a 645
> digital body. If they want to prosper that have
Herb wrote:
> hundreds of thousands vs millions.
The millions of lenses are entry level plastic zoom lenses of questionable
quality. The MF lenses are in the hands of enthusiast. No entry level MF lenses
exists.
Pål
Herb wrote:
> one might ask the same of a $10K body. how many 645D's do you think would be
> sold to this mailing list? there are probably a couple of hundred *istD*
> owners here. i'd say that they represent the bleeding edge of Pentax
> adopters with some cash to spare. there are also a numb
Herb wrote:
> which has been my point all along. something like the Nikon D2X slightly
> derated is what i would like. i could live with a 10MP sensor instead of a
> 12MP one, and somewhat slower maximum frame rate.
If they can sell only 20K of DSLR's in the hottest market segment, how many d
Herb wrote:
>that's why there
> is now a Phase One medium format back coming out with 39 megapixels. who's
> the market for a $10K or even $8K digital camera from Pentax?
Everyone who wants great image quality and who cannot afford 30K + an obsolete
camera made for a dying medium. This includ
Jostein wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Quote from 23/9-02:
> >
> > "I have no idea why anyone seriously thought, as opposed to wished,
> > that Pentax would sell a DSLR"
>
> By whom, Pål?
Bruce R
A shot in the dark
Are there any Dutch list members who have some knowledge of the dutch used
yacht market?
Pål
Mike wrote:
> That doesn't seem to be how it works to me. You make one body, then cut off
> a number of "features" to provide cheaper models, thereby getting three or so
> sets of sales for one level of R&D. You _might_ pick up some lens sales but
> many of the SLR buyers will already have le
Godfrey wrote:
> That's the key. For me the bottom line is: Make products that are
> compelling. If the cameras and lenses are compelling ... and to most
> people interested in taking pictures rather than comparing feature
> sets, the Pentax DSLRs are compelling ... there will be a market fo
Herb wrote:
> it's a sign that either Pentax wanted terms that Sony didn't like, that Sony
> found more willing support in KM, or that Sony was never interested in
> Pentax.
...or most likely; Pentax wasn't interested in Sony.
Pål
Dag wrote:
> I remember reading something very similar to this a few years ago when some
> people tried to prove that Pentax would never make a dslr.
>
Quote from 23/9-02:
"I have no idea why anyone seriously thought, as opposed to wished, that Pentax
would sell a DSLR"
Tom wrote:
> I think the 645D could turn into something good for the company. Digital
> medium format is a market with very little competition. They could make
> a lot of money per unit. The trick will be to sell enough units.
Pentax have the potential to be the first "affordable" MF based di
Herb wrote:
> 1) new SLR buyers who have never owned any SLR before - i think this market
> is negligible, even though John recently bought one this way and found his
> way here
I think you're wrong. Digital have recruited many more people into photography
that wasn't into in the film era. Ma
Tom wrote:
> In any case, we all have the choice to acquire information and decide
> whether what we think we're hearing is BS and ignore it, or find it to be
> plausible and use it in futher decisions.
The point is how you interpret the facts. I can't see anything dramatic in the
numbers. P
Boris wrote:
> Now I am thoroughly confused. That's because I do *know* that when such
> reports come out, the stuff written *between* the lines is what really
> *matters*...
Whats the problem? Camera companies have lost money on an on-off basis the last
50 year or so. The sky hasn't fallen y
Herb wrote:
> with Panasonic paired up with Olympus and now Sony with Konica-Minolta,
> there's no major Japanese electronics company left to partner with.
Couldn't that be a sign of strenght on Pentax behalf?
I don't think Sony need to go in cahoots with KM if they were that strong or
had tha
Boris wrote:
> Wait a moment. Pentax is still profitable, right? It is just that its
> profit decreased???
I think all digital manufaturers sees a decrease in profitability.
Pål
t;
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: I'm Getting an Auto Focus Camera
> Pål Jensen wrote:
> > Tom wrote:
> >
> >>I finally switched to my 200mm lens (the longest autofocus lens I have)
> >>and that didn't do any better. The camer
Tom wrote:
> I finally switched to my 200mm lens (the longest autofocus lens I have)
> and that didn't do any better. The camera couldn't focus fast enough to
> handle the job. This is the first situation I've run into where my MZ-S
> couldn't handle the job.
Strange. My MZ-S has no problem f
>
> Interesting. Two more Limited pancake lenses; one between 20 and 30mm and
> another between 70 and 80. A fisheye zoom from 10mm. Maybe the D FA 50-200 is
> a F:2.8 lens?
>
If the table is to be taken litterally the fisheye zoom is an 8-22mm and the
telephoto zoom a 50-220mm.
Pål
Joseph wrote:
> Pål, here's the url to the lens development roadmap:
>
> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf
Interesting. Two more Limited pancake lenses; one between 20 and 30mm and
another between 70 and 80. A fisheye zoom from 10mm. Maybe the D FA 50-200 is a
F:2.8 lens?
Joseph wrote:
> I assume that the forthcoming high-performance telezoom will be better
> out to the edges. Perhaps Pentax's better lenses will be suitable for
> image stabilization, but less so the lower-quality lenses.
"Edge definitions" is one of the parametres the D FA lenses are optimized
Cotty wrote:
> Joseph, surprisingly, heavier gear means more mass, and actually less
> movement. A heavier lens/camera combo is actually easier to hand-hold,
> although it does make your arms ache ;-)
That depends how heavy it is. Noone I know can held a 600mm lens stillIt is
too heavy... :
Joseph wrote:
> 3. Is this why the forthcoming "high-performance telezoom" will be a D
> FA? Reasoning: image stabilization is needed most of all for telephoto
> shots, and a D FA lens has more unused edge glass than does a DA lens.
What high performance telezoom...?
Pål
Cotty wrote:
> So if I want to find out what's happening with the 2005 model year
> Volkswagen, I search for 15 year old patents on the Ford web site then.
Sure, if it depends on the laws of physics. Why do you think there are so many
lens groups in an IS lens? Most of them is for correcting abb
Sylwester wrote:
> No it doesn't. The estimate is that AS allows you in practice to go
> down up to shutter speeds 2 stops slower, while IS/VR systems allow up
> to 3 stops.
IS is 2 stops. VR 3 stops.
Pål
Shel wrote:
> I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I should be using new
> technology. That I can learn to love it. That I should embrace it. That
> I'll get used to it. That it will help my photography. I don't want to
> learn to love it. The technology doesn't do anything for me.
Godfrey
> 1: In-body IS is generally not as effective as in-lens IS. The value
> of IB-IS is that it can apply to all lenses.
..and it won't reduce optical quality...
Regardless of how good the Canon IS lenses are, they would have been better
without the IS feature. Optical IS almost doubles
Frantisek:
> I am no expert on the matter, but from what was discussed about the
> KM stabilisation, it only works with AF lenses, because the body needs
> to know the exact focal length and maybe focused distance as well.
A good thing then that Pentax FA lenses transmit such information to the
- Original Message -
From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It seems that only Pentax has left now with no stabilisation option of any
> kind for their system. Is there any chance we wil see it in any form in the
> future?
A couple of years back the Pentax boss acnowledged t
- Original Message -
>I have read somewhere before that
> with some lenses, the infinity focus issue can be
> fixed by unscrewing certain screws and then readjust
> the lens. Does anyone know if this Sigma lens can be
> fixed this way?
Usually this stuff is a case of adjustment. It is
Dario wrote:
> Of course, you cannot find a mechanism called circle of confusion buried
> into a lens. However, an acceptable circle of confusion is a design task,
> dependent on the print size and the distance you are supposed to look at it,
> hence dependent from film/sensor size (a smaller
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Looks like under these assumptions the DOF for APS with the equivalent
> AOV is about double.
YES!
DOF is inversely propotional to format size.
Pål
Shel wrote:
An 18mm lens on a Pentax DSLR should yield, within a very small degree, the
identical result as a 28mm on a 35mm film camera. Two pics taken of the
same subject from precisely the same location should be virtually
indistinguishable wrt image size and FOV Is this correct? What, if
an
Jostein wrote:
> Have you asked Fovi if they're able to obtain one?
> With a bit of luck, they're in stock at the European HQ in Belgium.
Asked them last year. Never heard about it and they couldn't find it in any
list...
I don't think its for sale outside Japan...
Pål
Dario wrote:
"So, when you use a MF lens on 35mm, you usually get smaller
DOF that when using a lens of the same focal length designed for 35mm. This
can also happen when using lenses designed for 35mm on APS cameras (either
film or digi).
This does not happen when using lenses designed for that f
It seems like Pentax have a custom fit head/quick release system for at least
the 645 system. QS-B1/QS-20. The plate has that prong that fit into the hole
near the tripod socket on the camera bodies preventing twisting. BTW the plate
also seem to fit the tripod sockets for various Pentax K lense
Shel wrote:
>Why would anyone want an autofocus macro lens? I
> just don't understand that. Everything I understand about macro
> photography suggests that you want to be very precise with focus in order
> to obtain maximum DOF, or very specific DOF, and leaving that precision to
> autofocus see
Paul wrote:
What does this lens usually sell for? I realize it's hard to find one, so I
expect it to be pricey as well. But I do some macro for stock, and this is a
lens I really need. I don't just want it, I need it.
REPLY:
Hard to find used, but why not buy a new one? Should be as simple a
Toral Lund:
> As another spin-off from the looong "why choose *istDL" thread, I
> thought I might mention that I completely agree with the whoever-it-was
> who said that what he'd really like to see, was something that might be
> described as a digital version of the MZ-5n (or ZX-5n.) Like that
Herb wrote:
> Pentax's official revenue forecasts show that it will make money over the
> next three years, but the imaging products division will lose about the same
> amount of money in the next three years as they lost this year. sounds like
> a winning strategy to me. then you have the fin
Alan wrote:
>I shoot and test my FA43 many times and came to the
> same conclusion. At least I know Rob has the same opinion on FA43. We both, of
> course, bought the lemons. :-)
Obviously. The lens was tested by "Amateur Photographer" magazine and promptly
became their reference lens outperfo
Alan wrote:
> Well, the LX failed to generate cash flow and failed to compete with Canon
> F-1 &
> Nikon F3.
Neither the F3 or the F1 made any money. They were expensive to built and built
by hand.
>What made the LX successful?
Sales volume. 5000 units a month was a LOT for the most expensi
Alan wrote:
> However, the market has changed. Many 120 commerical shooters have moved to
> high-end
> Canon. Canon play one game, and they play it well. Pentax, however, are
> playing 2
> games, and both are lossing at the moment.
Maybe. But very few Professional (or non-professional) Pentax M
Alan wrote:
> LOL. It is because there is nothing else to brag about. I don't want to name
> names,
> but I think the whole "Pentax lenses have Zeiss or Leica like quality" is
> just a
> myth. Most people like to idealize the products they are using, Pentax fans
> are no
> different.
The pro
- Original Message -
From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
Hard to fault this logic
Pål
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon competitors?
> On 2 Jun 2005 at 10:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Either your needs have
Christian wrote:
> But that's my point. They are not playing their cards right. I liked
> Pentax the odd-ball, mystical company. The LX, the SMC lenses of mythical
> stature, the wacky focal length Limiteds, etc.
>
> To keep the oddball customers coming back, they had better come out with
> so
> > If Pal is correct and Pentax is working on an EOS-killer,...
I think I said they would make a camera that outperforms what Canon can offer
in image quality...
Pål
John wrote:
> Anyone who finds this news in any way astonishing just hasn't been
> paying attention. Pentax stated their future path, loud and clear,
> in the interview given at about the time the *ist-DS was released.
> First the DL, then the MF digital, and then the *ist-D follow-on.
> But the
Herb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Predictable Pentax
> expanding the base works only if you are not losing a lot of money while
> doing it. if you do, there's no money left for when the demand
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future
> the Leica with a 10MP sensor and less components lists for $9K. since Kodak
> also makes the 645D sensor, there no chance that the 645D sen
Alan wrote:
> I thought they stop doing that after the failure of LX? Perhaps the LX was the
> biggest mistake ever to Pentax because Pentax fans have had such unrealistic
> expectation since.
The LX a failure? Certainly not saleswise. Considering that the camera was
among the most expensive 3
Bruce wrote:
> The sad thing about this is, that Pentax has to be WAY better than
> Canon or Nikon to be able to get any attention. There is no way for
> any other manufacturer to be WAY better than Canon. They can be a
> little bit better all the way around, but it won't matter much.
My origi
Christian wrote:
>But I'm wondering what it offers that
> the others do not.
What it offers is that it isn't a Canon. This about as sensible aswer to the
question as you can get. There are as many reasons as there are people.
Pål
Rob wrote:
> The fact that Pentax don't have a visible upper level body doesn't help their
> position in the market.
True, but the issue is when is the right time for releasing an upper level
body. According to Pentax they will but only after the Pentax DSLR user base is
sufficiently large. 66
Dario wrote:
> I'm not argumenting the choice of 3-segment AF here. That can be fine.
> I only ask why the hell they have to mess-up things that way. Whay don't
> they call the damn thing SAFOX IV, SAFOXIX (ah, ah), SAFOX L, or SAFOX
> WHATEVER? Why SAFOX VIII (which is another thing)?
Maybe it
- Original Message -
From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: Predictable Pentax
>
> Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no
> less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two
> oth
Herb wrote:
> 66K DSLRs is 2/3 of what Kodak sold last year and Kodak is pulling the plug
> on their DSLRs. Kodak's DSLRs were a lot more expensive than any Pentax one
> and they still outsold Pentax. since the Pentax DSLRs are low end models,
> Pentax isn't making much money on them.
Sure.
Jostein wrote:
> I think the most likely "conspiracy" theory is that Pentax Japan is holding
> their cards to tightly to their chest as usual. Pentax UK sounds like they
> don't know what's coming, so they choose to focus on the past.
>
> Pentax Japan is extremely inept at making use of buzz for
Jostein wrote:
> I think you're right. Now that the MedF systems are entering the market with
> cameras more suited for work outside studios, chances are they will put the FF
> high-pixel cameras in a squeeze.
Thats what I think too. If the price rumors are correct it will cost less than
a full
Bruce wrote:
> Bill, that is shocking! I used to use 67II's and did NOT think they
> were light or small. At least it had a big negative. That Canon is
> one BIG camera for having a sensor of that size.
Yes...and it makes the Pentax 645 system look small...
Pål
Cornelius wrote:
?
> Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full frame (35mm)
> sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will >have MF digitals surely one of
> these sensors could be used, even if it has to be masked?
Cost and problem with performance at the corners due t
Paul wrote:
> There's a world of price differentiation between and F3 and the 645D.
> Yeah, hobbyists will use a 645 system that they purchased for a grand
> or so. But will they come up with close to 10K for a digital body? Some
> say it will be much more. I doubt it. If there's no pro market
William wrote:
>The Nikon rep estimated that something like 5%
> of F3 cameras were in the hands of pro photographers, the rest were owned by
> well heeled amateurs.
I've heard the same number for the F5. However, the Pentax distributor here in
Norway says that 50% of Pentax MF are sold to pro
Dag wrote:
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Kodak kills DSLR
> Why not try to be optimistic: They may have decided to drop the Nikon og
> Canon based full frame cameras in order to concentrate on the cooperatio
Paul wrote:
> But if it's medium format it will probably fail. Not enough of an installed
> base of potential users to support it. If it's K-mount, it may have a chance.
Maybe it is just me and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe theres a brick
wall at 35mm sensor size where any gain in
Herb wrote:
my thoughts too. the announcement of the 645D just about sealed it for me. they
don't have the resources to do major digital development of more than one
camera line at a time. they lost money on the imaging products in the past year
and are expected to do it again this coming year,
John wrote:
I hope Pentax will survive as a quirky niche player offering petite, highly
ergonomic bodies and some superb lenses.
REPLY:
They can't. They have to cover all bases including upper end bodies (here's
where the 645D comes in). DSLR cost so much to develop that niche plaing is out
Paul wrote:
Now some expect Pentax to match Canon's top of the line offerings. Ain't gonna
happen.
REPLY:
Rumors (backed by official statements) says Pentax will come out with a DSLR
that outperforms Canon's top offering and also undercut it on price.
Pål
Joseph wrote:
True? Who knows? But definitely worth reading. The rumors (re: the partner)
have been consistent for several weeks.
REPLY:
I won't put too much credit on this rumors. That pentax should stop making
desireable lenses are to the contrary to whats actually happening. They have
ju
Carlos wrote:
According to Richard Hunecke's books about the MZ-5/3/5n (sorry if I have
mispelled his name, I have one of my cats on my lap and cannot go to check it)
the internal chassis of those cameras is made of metal (light alloy diecast).
REPLY:
Really? I could swear it was an MZ-5 I sa
Alan wrote:
"Well, at least my cheapo ZX-10 has the steal sheet that you mention as well (I
happened to remove the bottom for some reason), and that sheet itself is mounted
onto the plastic structure. But my major concern is the camera mount which is
mounted onto the plastic mirror box. Now don't
William wrote:
How much more mass does the camera have to shift with the 85?
REPLY:
I think it actually has to move less mass with the 85mm lens as it is inner
focusing whereas the 77mm is not; the whole lens tube need to be moved when
focusing.
Pål
Alan wrote:
I don't know about that, I have never seen any picture indicates MZ-S has the
metal
frame like D/DS. I think D is the first Pentax body with such design. There is
no
practical difference whether to use metal or plastic mount if it was fastened
onto a
plastic structure. MZ-S carries
Alan wrote:
"But if I remember
correctly, Pal
emphasized many times that the MZ-S was the strongest built Pentax 135 body.
But if
it's inner structure was the same/similar as other MZ/ZX bodies, how was that
possible?"
REPLY:
It isn't possible...
Alan:
Not that I am allergic to plastic ,
Alan wrote:
But talking about the MZ-S, I have been told it's
actually a
plastic camera inside, just like other MZ/ZX bodies, with magnesium alloy shells
only.
REPLY:
This is utter bullshit. I've seen the internals of my MZ-S and it is not
remotely built like other MZ-series which are built
John Whittingham wrote:
I know one of you guys must haveone, could you give me an opinion of the
optical qualities please and what I'm likely to pay for one.
REPLY:
This is a good but not outstanding lens. It is soft in the corner wide open and
at F:22. It has exceptionally good flare supres
401 - 500 of 2309 matches
Mail list logo
